Garland v. Cargill

Last updated
Garland v. Cargill
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 28, 2024
Decided June 14, 2024
Full case nameMerrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Michael Cargill
Docket no. 22-976
Case history
Prior
  • Cargill v. Garland,57F.4th447(5th Cir.2023)(en banc).
  • Cargill v. Garland,20F.4th1004(5th Cir.2021).
  • Cargill v. Barr,502F.Supp.3d1163(W.D. Tex.2020).
Questions presented
Whether a bump stock device is a "machinegun" as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires "automatically more than one shot...by a single function of the trigger."
Holding
The ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b). Pp. 6–19.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
ConcurrenceAlito
DissentSotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson

Garland v. Cargill, (Docket No. 22-976), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding bump stocks. [1] [2] The court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority by classifying bump stocks as "machine guns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. [3]

Contents

Background

Machine guns are regulated in the United States under the National Firearms Act of 1934. [4] The Act provides, as codified in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code, the following definition:

"The term 'machinegun' means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."

A bump stock is a gun stock designed to facilitate the process of bump firing. Bump firing is the practice of using the recoil of a semiautomatic firearm to mimic fully automatic fire. In the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting, a gunman using semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks fired hundreds of rounds into a crowd, killing 58 and wounding over 500. In response, the ATF quickly proposed a new rule [5] to repudiate its previous stance and "clarify" that bump stocks did transform weapons into machine guns. Ever since, the legality of these attachments had been challenged at the state and federal level. In 2018, by then after Parkland High School shooting, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) published a Final Rule in the Federal Register stating that bump stocks device were a "machine guns" and thus illegal other than for or under authority of government agencies, with owners of bump stocks either having to destroy or surrender them to the ATF to avoid criminal prosecution. [6]

Respondent Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works [7] purchased two bump stocks in April 2018, a few months before the ATF published its new rule. On March 25, 2019, Cargill surrendered his bump stocks to the ATF under protest [6] . The same day, he filed suit in the Western District of Texas challenging the rule. Following a bench trial, the judge ruled in favor of the government. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment. Following additional briefing and argument, the en banc court reversed and remanded. On remand, the District Court entered judgment for Cargill. [8] The Biden administration subsequently asked the Supreme Court to appeal this decision. [9]

Supreme Court

Proceedings and outcome

On April 6, 2023, the Attorney General petitioned the court for a writ of certiorari. The court granted the petition on November 3. Oral arguments were heard on February 28, 2024. [10] On June 14, 2024, the Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Cargill, ruling that the ATF exceeded its authority in defining bump stocks as machine guns. [3]

Majority opinion

The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, stated that under the relevant federal law,, bump stock attachments did not qualify as machine guns. The Thomas opinion was joined by the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and by Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Associate Justice Alito wrote, in addition, a separate concurring opinion. [3] Associate Justice Thomas stated in his opinion that while a bump stock can increase the rate of fire for a semi-automatic firearm to that approaching a machinegun, there exist distinctions (summarized below) between a traditional machinegun and the semi-automatic firearm which is equipped with a bump stock. [6]

  1. A 'bump stock' device does not mechanically alter the firearm to which it is attached (other than replacing the host firearm's buttstock and pistol grip) and that bump-firing can even be achieved without needing the specialized device. [note 1]
  2. The successful rapid cycling of a firearm equipped with a 'bump stock' is not reducible to an automatic process, as it requires an active maintenance of constant forward pressure by the shooter's off-hand and a specific posture with the other. [note 2]
  3. While it may happen quickly, each 'bump' of the trigger by the shooter's finger still only results in the discharge of one shot at a time. [note 3]

For these reasons, Justice Thomas concluded that a bump stock functions neither "automatically" nor does a bump stock "shoot...more than one shot...per single function of the trigger". Hence, the bump stock would not be a machinegun under the NFA as it is currently written. [11] Additionally, Justice Thomas criticized the dissenting opinion for the case and characterized it as betraying the law's text for reasons of convenience:

"The presumption against ineffectiveness cannot do the work that ATF and the dissent ask of it. A law is not useless merely because it draws a line more narrowly than one of its conceivable statutory purposes might suggest."

Dissenting opinion

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, arguing that firearms equipped with bump stocks should be considered as machine guns because not doing so would make the National Firearms Act less effective: "This court has repeatedly avoided interpretations of a statute that would facilitate its ready 'evasion'...”. [6]

Notes

  1. Associate Justice Thomas articulated this finding with these remarks: "Although bump firing does not require any additional equipment, there are accessories designed to make the technique easier. A 'bump stock' is one such accessory. It replaces a semiautomatic rifle’s stock (the back part of the rifle that rests against the shooter’s shoulder) with a plastic casing that allows every other part of the rifle to slide back and forth. This casing helps manage the back-and-forth motion required for bump firing. A bump stock also has a ledge to keep the shooter’s trigger finger stationary. A bump stock does not alter the basic mechanics of bump firing."
  2. Thomas wrote the following: "Firing multiple shots using a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock requires more than a single function of the trigger. A shooter must also actively maintain just the right amount of forward pressure on the rifle’s front grip with his nontrigger hand."
  3. Associate Justice Thomas described this finding using the following language: "ATF and the dissent seek to call the shooter’s initial trigger pull a 'function of the trigger' while ignoring the subsequent 'bumps' of the shooter’s finger against the trigger before every additional shot. But, §5845(b) does not define a machinegun based on what type of human input engages the trigger—whether it be a pull, bump, or something else. Nor does it define a machinegun based on whether the shooter has assistance engaging the trigger. The statutory definition instead hinges on how many shots discharge when the shooter engages the trigger."

Related Research Articles

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made more certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

<i>United States v. Stewart</i> (2003) United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case

United States v. Stewart, 348 F.3d 1132 and 451 F.3d 1071, is a Ninth Circuit case involving a challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found against the defendant, ruling that possession of homemade machine guns can be constitutionally regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. The procedures of the Court are governed by the U.S. Constitution, various federal statutes, and its own internal rules. Since 1869, the Court has consisted of one chief justice and eight associate justices. Justices are nominated by the president, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the U.S. Senate, appointed to the Court by the president. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bump stock</span> Gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing

Bump stocks or bump fire stocks are gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing, the act of using the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire cartridges in rapid succession.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Short-barreled rifle</span> Weapon

Short-barreled rifle broadly refers to any rifle with an unusually short barrel. The term carbine describes a production rifle with a reduced barrel length for easier handling in confined spaces. Concern about concealment for illegal purposes has encouraged regulations specifying minimum barrel lengths and overall lengths.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2001 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2001 term, which began October 1, 2001, and concluded October 6, 2002.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2011 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span> 2011 decisions of the US supreme court

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.

<i>Peruta v. San Diego County</i>

Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" before issuing a concealed carry permit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Assault weapons legislation in the United States</span>

Assault weapons legislation in the United States refers to bills and laws that define and restrict or make illegal the manufacture, transfer, and possession of assault weapons. How these firearms are defined and regulated varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; generally, this constitutes a list of specific firearms and combinations of features on semiautomatic firearms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2015 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. 404 (2016), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples. In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children. However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up. E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights. On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law. The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama. V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children. On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 63</span>

The 2016 Proposition 63, titled Firearms and Ammunition Sales, is a California ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016 ballot. It requires a background check and California Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition, prohibits possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines over ten rounds, levies fines for failing to report when guns are stolen or lost, establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons, and requires California Department of Justice's participation in the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), abbreviated NYSRPA v. NYC and also known as NYSRPA I to distinguish it from the subsequent case, was a case addressing whether the gun ownership laws of New York City, which restrict the transport of a licensed firearm out of one's home, violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, and the right to travel. It was the first major gun-related case that the Supreme Court had accepted for review in nearly ten years, after District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, New York City and New York state amended its laws to allay the challenged provision. In a per curiam decision in April 2020, the Supreme Court determined that the case was moot, vacating and remanding the case to lower courts to determine "whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in this lawsuit with respect to New York City's old rule".

Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case before the United States Supreme Court dealing with mens rea. The Court held that when a person is charged with possessing a gun while prohibited from doing so under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the prosecution must prove both that the accused knew that they possessed a gun and that they knew they held the relevant status.

Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to habeas corpus.

A binary trigger is a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to fire at an increased rate. The binary trigger works by firing one shot upon pulling the trigger and then firing a subsequent shot upon release of the trigger.

References

  1. Liptak, Adam (November 11, 2023). "A Rare Trump Gun Control Measure Faces a Supreme Court Test". New York Times .
  2. Quinn, Melissa (November 3, 2023). "Supreme Court agrees to hear case over ban on bump stocks for firearms". CBS News . Retrieved November 4, 2023.
  3. 1 2 3 Lambert, Lisa (14 June 2024). "US Supreme Court lifts ban on gun bump stocks". BBC News . Retrieved 14 June 2024.
  4. "Timeline of pivotal moments in US gun control history". AP News. 2018-03-15. Retrieved 2024-06-15.
  5. 83 Fed. Reg. 13442
  6. 1 2 3 4 "22-776 Garland v. Cargill" (PDF). The Supreme Court. October 2023. pp. 1–18. Retrieved June 14, 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  7. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-agrees-hear-challenges-bump-stock-ban-new-yorks-financial-blacklisting-nra
  8. "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari" (PDF). April 6, 2023. Retrieved November 4, 2023.
  9. Chung, Andrew (April 7, 2023). "Biden appeals ruling against ban on gun bump stocks". Reuters. Retrieved June 14, 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  10. Fritze, John; Cole, Devan (28 February 2024). "Takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments over bump stocks and machine guns". CNN . Retrieved 9 April 2024.
  11. Sullum, Jacob (2024-06-14). "Supreme Court upholds the rule of law by rejecting the Trump administration's bump stock ban". Reason.com. Retrieved 2024-06-15.